Oscar Winners: Best and Worst [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Oscar Winners: Best and Worst



Smokey
03-20-2010, 05:43 PM
Oscar winners especially the Best Picture of the Year always seem to create controversy regarding the academy’s pick. For example this year's winner Hurt Locker is labeled as Ok movie and nothing spectacular that deserve a Best Picture award (although haven’t seen it myself).

So for fun, which of following Best Picture of the Year winners of last decade would you say deserve its oscar most (best of bunch), and which one least (worst of bunch). I pick No Country For Old Men as best of bunch. It is definently Coen's brothers best film.
And the worst pick, Chicago. Bollywood would not be proud.

Ranked by date:

2009 - “The Hurt Locker”
http://cvdm.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hurt_locker2.jpg

2008 - “Slumdog Millionaire”
http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Slumdog-Millionaire-f08.jpg

2007 - “No Country for Old Men”
http://www.cinencuentro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/no-country-for-old-men.thumbnail.jpg

2006 - “The Departed”
http://hooverdust.com/wp-content/images/departed.jpg

2005 - “Crash”
http://www.journal.lv/media/crash-movie_film_001.jpg

2004 - “Million Dollar Baby”
http://msnlatino.telemundo.com/_cache/content/Boxeo-2009/Photo/million-dollar-baby_ap___484x363.jpg

2003 - “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”
http://www.legalmoviesdownloads.com/still-frames-movie-pictures/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-1-viggo-mortensen-aragorn.jpg

2002 - “Chicago”
http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/185002.1020.A.jpg

2001 - “A Beautiful Mind”
http://jesciey.hp.infoseek.co.jp/beautiful_mind4.jpg

2000 - “Gladiator”
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Raketnet/Drama/Gladiator6.jpg

emaidel
03-21-2010, 03:56 AM
this year's winner Hurt Locker is labeled as Ok movie and nothing spectacular that deserve a Best Picture award (although haven’t seen it myself).



Absolutely ridiculous. "The Hurt Locker" was, and is, one of the best war movies ever made, and richly deserved the Oscar. It was NEVER "labeled as OK" but was one of the most highly reviewed films for the entire year. I'd suggest you see it. You won' be disappointed.

recoveryone
03-21-2010, 09:38 AM
I wouldn't go as far as best war movie ever, but it gave a nice depletion of life in a war zone and how American troops deal with the stress. Main character: Had some extreme death wish/thrill seeker mentality Young troop: fear of dying Black Sgt: Just wants to get home in one piece.

As far as war flicks I'll put Black Hawk Down above Hurt Locker

For the rest of the list I have my own opinions on why the academy may have picked them:

Slum Dog: first India film to be at Hollywood standards

No Country: I watched this, still shaking my head. If this had taken place in the 60' or later I could buy off on the lack of law enforcement response Friend doe

The Departed: Very Very true look at Bostons law enforcement issues and relationship with its underworld.

Crash: Even after Slavery, Jim Crow laws and such we all still harbor fears of others that don't look like us and many get upset when they feel they are not getting what they expect. Good film I call it "man in the mirror"

Million dollar baby: The cast won the Oscar for this movie, not the film itself

LOTR: Great story Oscar given for the trilogy not just the one flick

Chicago: Another Cast Oscar

Bea Mind: Russell on a roll from Gladiator

Gladiator: perfect Story line being the great Gen to Slave to a man that embarrass Cesar and Rome

Troy
03-21-2010, 05:27 PM
It's amazing how often the academy gets it wrong. While the actual best movie of the year usually gets nominated, it often loses to some terrible, totally forgettable junk. Here's 11 of the worst cases from the last 40 years:

2008: Slumdog Millionaire beating Any of the other nominations
2002: Chicago beating The Pianist or Gangs of New York
1996: The English Patient beating Fargo
1994: Forest Gump beating Pulp Fiction
1990: Dances With Wolves beating Goodfellas
1983: Terms of Endearment beating The Right Stuff
1981: Chariots of Fire beating Raiders of the Lost Ark
1980: Ordinary People beating Raging Bull
1979: Kramer Vs Kramer beating Apocalypse Now
1976: Rocky beating Taxi Driver
1970: Patton beating MASH

The academy tends to play it way too safe and end up skipping the movies that end up changing the course of film- and pop culture-history. '79 thru '83 were particularly bad. I've always considered winning best picture sort of a liability, like being elected to the rock and roll hall of fame or winning a grammy.

And then there's this year: I didn't like Hurt Locker very much and am frankly shocked that it won. It wasn't even the best war movie nominated! The idea that the Renner character would repeatedly be allowed to breach protocol and put the team in grave danger over and over again without being demoted and taken off the line ruined my suspension of disbelief and the whole thing fell apart from there for me. The freelance excursion at the end of the film was ridiculous. All well and good, but I'm insulted by the media telling us that it's so great because it's so "real." It's actually NOT very realistic at all. Sure, Inglourious Basterds was even less realistic (in fact it was quite surreal), but it makes no pretense towards reality, for this and many other reasons, it's a much more entertaining movie. The concept that war is a drug is as old as war movies themselves. The media playing that aspect up as "being something new" is idiotic.

I think the real reason for Hurt Locker's popularity is that it's the first Gulf War movie that is a traditional war movie. Pretty much every other GW flick has been strongly anti-war and depressing. HL is a pro-war movie, a throwback to the cornball gung-ho John Wayne movies of the '50s. Which is why I'm so surprised to see it win. Since when is the academy pro-war? Every other war movie that ever won BP was strongly anti-war. HL glorifies it, makes it noble and exciting.

For the record, 3 Kings is the best Gulf War flick and Apocalypse Now, Band of Brothers and Kelly's Heroes are my favorite war films.

I wanted Up in the Air to win BP this year. That's the one in 20 years people are going to be still talking about and watching. Just like these other losers: Raging Bull, Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas.

Original question:
No Country for Old Men is the best one for me (though There Will Be Blood may end up being the the most interesting, important and genre-defining movie of that year.) Departed was excellent too.

Slumdog or Chicago were the worst. Terrible movies.

RGA
03-21-2010, 05:29 PM
The Academy IMO usually gets it wrong on the picture but sometimes nominates the right movie. I have a big database on this that I created back when I was going to be a film critic LOL.

But going just by the best picture nominees

2000 Gladiator
Nominated "Chocolat," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "Erin Brockovich," "Traffic"

I would have picked ANY of these over Gladiator which I gave 2.5/4 stars to. (3/4 is recommended so IMO they picked a lame movie for nomination let alone the win. Arggh. My pick of the remaining 4 would probably be Crouching Tiger but it wasn't really a very good year.

2001 "A BEAUTIFUL MIND,"
Nominated "Gosford Park," "In the Bedroom," "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," "Moulin Rouge"

Eesh what a bunch of garbage. My choice was "In the Bedroom" and I believe it made my top ten list that year. "A Beautiful Mind" was the second year in a row that I gave a best picture winner **1/2 - not even recommended. Arrggg!

2002 "CHICAGO,"
"Gangs of New York," "The Hours," "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," "The Pianist"

The best of the Rings trilogy (which isn't saying much), and another horrible bunch of nominations. I chose The Pianist practically by default - it was pretty good. Chicago was at least better than Moulin Rouge and had some nice performances and big spectacle. As musicals go it was an ok choice. Still I think I know that the last three years I started to lose interest in movies.

2003"THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING,"
"Lost In Translation," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," "Mystic River," "Seabiscuit"

I never saw Master and Commander but here again any of the other movies should have won. Mystic River was pretty good but I would have to pick Seabiscuit or Lost in Translation. The latter many people found slow and dull or too artsy and as such these never have a shot. Seabiscuit is a little made for TV Sunday special but I enjoyed it. LOTR3 didn't know when to quit had no humour and a 9 hour story to tell an incredibly thin 2 hour plot.

2004 "MILLION DOLLAR BABY,"
"The Aviator," "Finding Neverland," "Ray," "Sideways"

They made the right choice. Finding Neverland I saw not long ago and it was quite good. Ray was okay - better performance than movie and Sideways was interesting but too on the nose.

2005 "CRASH,"
"Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Good Night, and Good Luck," "Munich"

Not a bad bunch - still have no seen Brokeback Mountain though I bought a used copy. Crash was good, didn't bother me that it won, but I would have taken Good Night, and Good Luck or Munich. Probably Munich in the end which was quite interesting. GN and GL is certainly topical after watching Fox and their idea of what News is. Talk about biased drivel.

Then I moved to Korea and China for 3 years so I can't comment after 2005

This year I saw Avatar, Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds. My choice would be Inglorious Bastards but I very much liked the Hurt Locker. Either I could watch again.

So from 2000 - 2005 I only really agreed with Million Dollar Baby as the clear choice.

RGA
03-21-2010, 06:00 PM
I'd like to do the 1990's just to see if I agree with any of them.

1990 Dances with Wolves (or Avatar without special effects and aliens).
"Awakenings", "Ghost", "The Godfather, Part III", "GoodFellas"

Goodfellas is a masterpiece - the rest are not. Dances was a good film but Goodfellas remains his best Picture IMO and better than the Godfather. Should have won.

1991 "THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS",
"Beauty and the Beast", "Bugsy", "JFK", "The Prince of Tides"

JFK anyway you slice it. It was a terrific piece of film making, interpretation, editing and cameo usage. Silence was neat - but even Dexter is way better.

1992 "UNFORGIVEN",
"The Crying Game", "A Few Good Men", "Howards End", "Scent of a Woman"

Ah what the heck - I have seen Unforgiven a few more times over the years and it grows on me. The rest don't so I may as well agree with it - pretty lame year. At the time I like Crying Game but...

1993 "SCHINDLER'S LIST",
"The Fugitive", "In the Name of the Father", "The Piano", "The Remains of the Day"

Even the Academy couldn't screw this one up - it was better than the other 4 films put together and I really liked some of them. They still managed to screw up the best supporting actor category and they should have nominated Ben Kingsley and Embeth Davidz in Schindler's List but oh well.

1994 "FORREST GUMP",
"Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Pulp Fiction", "Quiz Show", "The Shawshank Redemption"

Maybe the best year of the decade for nominations. Forrest Gump would have been a fine choice in other years and I do like it a whole lot. It's such an amiable movie with a terrific performance and a bit oddball. But Pulp Fiction is just so good that it practically created a genre. The Shawshank Redemption may be the best prison picture and Quiz Show is a GREAT film that in any most years may have received a best picture.

Pulp Fiction was my choice - Shawshank was second and Quiz Show was third. But in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 any of the three would have been my choice for best picture.

1995 "BRAVEHEART",
"Apollo 13", "Babe", "Il Postino", "Sense and Sensibility"

Yes the year that Leaving Las Vegas was nominated for Best Actor (and won), best Actress, best director, and best adapted screenplay and then NOT get a nomination for best picture is just plain idiotic. It was easily better than any of this bunch and so was the Usual Suspects which also didn't get a nomination. Braveheart out of the 5 - fine with me - because the others were not that great. Apollo 13 was good not great.

1996 "THE ENGLISH PATIENT",
"Fargo", "Jerry Maguire", "Secrets and Lies", "Shine"

The English Patient was very good - it has grown on me more and more over the years despite some dumb dialog. It's what the academy likes. Fargo was wonderfully funny but like Pulp the dark humour doesn't fly. My choice was actually Secrets and Lies. JM should not have been nominated.

1997 "TITANIC",
"L.A. Confidential", "As Good As It Gets", "Good Will Hunting", "The Full Monty"

My choice is Good Will Hunting. It's the only one I enjoy watching on repeat viewings. LA Confidential was technically good but not a big fan of this kind of noir. Titanic I enjoyed on first view for spectacle - but it's just not as good as the hype.

1998 SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE,
"Elizabeth", "Life is Beautiful" (Best Foreign Language Film winner), "Saving Private Ryan", "The Thin Red Line"

My choice was SPR. Life is Beautiful was right there. Though to be honest I like Shakespeare in Love and I liked the inside Shakespeare jokes and perhaps actors got more out of this film than regular movie goers which is why it won. SPR gets hit for not living up to the first half hour but I don't think that's fair. It's a better movie than it gets credit for. Life is Beautiful balanced its highwire act wonderfully.

1999 "AMERICAN BEAUTY",
"The Cider House Rules", "The Green Mile", "The Insider", "The Sixth Sense"

The Academy made the right choice - I agree 100%.

So That leaves 1992, 1993, and 1999 as years I agree.


Best picture for me for the decade
Schindler's List

My four runner ups: Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, JFK

Smokey
03-21-2010, 10:03 PM
Emaidel,
Thanks for the prop on Hurt Locker movie. I'm not a big fan of military movies, so I might be biased when judging one. The lady who direct it Kathryn Bigelow was on Charlie Rose (PBS) and from interview and clips, it seem the movie might not be my cup of tea. .

Recoveryone,
Thanks for explanation of why academy choose those movies for Best Picture award and most of them are probably true. But for Chicago, would'nt you say that giving the award for cast rather than the movie itself might not warrant Best Picture title.

Troy,
I agree with you assessment that..."the best movie of the year usually gets nominated, but it often loses to some terrible totally forgettable junk"...except the last one from 1970 (Patton beating MASH). I thought Patton definitely deserved the best picture award as it is one best war moive I ever seen. MASH is alright, but it is not the same league as Patton (IMO).

But your review of Hurt Locker seem to agree with those that argue the movie was too repetitious with no accountability. And your reason for Hurt Locker's popularity, the first Gulf War movie that is a traditional war movie was interesting.

RGA,
Thanks for a long and detail report on oscar wining movies of this decade, but on couple of them I might disagree. On 2001 which A Beautiful Mind won, tend to agree with academy on this one. The way the director Ron Howard work the story and kept the audience guessing about the hallucination the lead character is having was just brilliant.

But agree with you on Lord of the Ring trilogy. Just like Harry Potter, found the movie too rigid and too long.

For the decade of 1990’s, tend to agree with you the Goodfellow was a masterpiece (but wouldn’t go as far as saying it was better than Godfather). The Best Movie of Year I have trouble with is Schindler's List. I went to theater to see that one, and found it too dark and depressing. I think Spielberg was too emotionally warped up on subject of this movie, and it played like a documentary.

RGA
03-22-2010, 12:38 PM
That's the thing about movies - so darn subjective - I know people who can watch LOTR series over and over and over and find some sort of depth to it. Star Wars was based on the same books but it never took itself seriously. Star Wars, Empire and to some degree Return have tongue in cheek humour and that wink wink to the audience managed to make them fun to watch - unlike the dreadful "new" trilogy which are bloated, longwinded, dreary and dopey.

LOTR has the effects and somewhat solid story but without the wink wink and no real characters. Star Wars holds up not for the effects but for the story.

I saw Schindler's List 9 times in the theater dragging people to see it. So I would say I know that movie pretty darn well owning the Laser Disc limited boxed set and the DVD boxed edition. It's supposed to be filmed in a documentary and dispassionate fashion. Spielberg does two things - adheres to the Keneally novel's main points without embellishing and manages to take a center point on the history of the period while creating the Stern character as Schindler's conscience.

A lot of critical work has been done on Schindler List probably to determine what kind of personal psychology makes one individual do something "good" while others do nothing especially when it comes from a womanizing alcoholic profiteer.

I chose to do a history minor because of the film and then found the film to be more historically even handed than a lot of historians on the subject.

Spielberg is a master entertainer - Raiders, E.T, Jaws, Close Encounters, and he does this so well - sometimes not so well but when he hits he usually hits big.

Schindler's List for cinematography, adapted screenplay, direction, cast performance and as a film for me is the best picture I have seen - and i have seen Citizen Kane, 81/2, etc.

3:15min black and white about the holocaust is not everyone's cup of tea. So it goes.

Troy
03-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Troy,
I agree with you assessment that..."the best movie of the year usually gets nominated, but it often loses to some terrible totally forgettable junk"...except the last one from 1970 (Patton beating MASH). I thought Patton definitely deserved the best picture award as it is one best war moive I ever seen. MASH is alright, but it is not the same league as Patton (IMO).

All well and good, but keep in mind what I was saying about the academy always looking backwards instead of forwards. MASH was the stylistically ground-breaking movie that year, the one that people still talk about as being important for Altman's choppy ensemble technique, as well as it's strange mixture of gore with irreverent humor. Patton is a more traditional and linear war movie with very dated FX and battle scenes. Good (mainly because of Scott's performance), but not nearly as historically interesting or important a film as MASH was.

Smokey
03-22-2010, 09:35 PM
I saw Schindler's List 9 times in the theater dragging people to see it.

That movie was probably the first film in theater that I heard audience crying, especially at end where crowd putting stone on Shindler's grave. For me, I guess the expectation for Schindler List was high since it came right off the heel of Jurasic Park. If the movie was directed by somebody else, I probably be less critical of it.

Feanor
03-23-2010, 05:20 AM
That movie was probably the first film in theater that I heard audience crying, especially at end where crowd putting stone on Shindler's grave. For me, I guess the expectation for Schindler List was high since it came right off the heel of Jurasic Park. If the movie was directed by somebody else, I probably be less critical of it.
I've seen Schindler's List only once and I was oddly unaffected by it. I don't mean to imply any specific criticism: it was a solid film. Perhaps I'd heard too much hype before I got see it, i.e. a matter of excessive expectation.

Troy
03-23-2010, 08:06 AM
The thing about Schindler's List and other holocaust movies . . . this may sound insensitive and I don't mean it that way at all . . . but basically, they are easy. The story carries so much heavy baggage for the audience, which means the film-maker doesn't have to work that hard to provoke a response. With some people, you just say "Auschwitz" and they start crying. This is why I'm not much of a fan of concentration camp movies–they are too manipulative and cheap, frequently belittling the gravity of the historical facts. Maudlin crap like Life is Beautiful is virtually unwatchable for me.

For this reason, I have a strong dislike for movies that use the holocaust as a plot point. Using the holocaust as entertainment? I have a problem with that.

Another problem for me; there will always be a messed up segment of the audience that sees any violent movie, like Schindler, as death porn–those people that get off on Amon sniping from his balcony and all the other graphic violence and cruelty in this movie. I'm not sure how Spielberg feels about that, but for all his lofty aspirations, he's really only feeding the fire with that segment of the audience. It makes me feel dirty and uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, Schindler is the best holocaust flick by a large margin because of its unflinching documentarian style. But like any holocaust movie for me, it has 2-strikes against it, right out of the box.

RGA
03-23-2010, 07:53 PM
I've seen Schindler's List only once and I was oddly unaffected by it. I don't mean to imply any specific criticism: it was a solid film. Perhaps I'd heard too much hype before I got see it, i.e. a matter of excessive expectation.

Expectations on films usually have that effect on everyone so it's not you to guys. I was fortunate in that I saw it on opening night - Christmas Day and all I knew was that it was Spielberg and about the holocaust.

But I remember that a Clockwork Orange was nominated for best picture and was ranked as one of the top 100 films of all time. I shut it off half way through it was so bad.

But I gave it another shot and now it's my number 2 film all time. Going from a no-star dreck to one of my favorites. I was expecting so much from a top 100 and a Kubrick film...

RGA
03-23-2010, 08:15 PM
The thing about Schindler's List and other holocaust movies . . . this may sound insensitive and I don't mean it that way at all . . . but basically, they are easy. The story carries so much heavy baggage for the audience, which means the film-maker doesn't have to work that hard to provoke a response. With some people, you just say "Auschwitz" and they start crying. This is why I'm not much of a fan of concentration camp movies–they are too manipulative and cheap, frequently belittling the gravity of the historical facts. Maudlin crap like Life is Beautiful is virtually unwatchable for me.

For this reason, I have a strong dislike for movies that use the holocaust as a plot point. Using the holocaust as entertainment? I have a problem with that.

Another problem for me; there will always be a messed up segment of the audience that sees any violent movie, like Schindler, as death porn–those people that get off on Amon sniping from his balcony and all the other graphic violence and cruelty in this movie. I'm not sure how Spielberg feels about that, but for all his lofty aspirations, he's really only feeding the fire with that segment of the audience. It makes me feel dirty and uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, Schindler is the best holocaust flick by a large margin because of its unflinching documentarian style. But like any holocaust movie for me, it has 2-strikes against it, right out of the box.

That's a valid point the subject matter can already present a "mood" just by its very subject matter - though most war films fall into this camp. That's why it's such a hard thing to select best picture winners. Pulp Fiction was my number 2 film of the decade and couldn't be more different. From a "creative film making" perspective it for me was the best but Schindler's List nailed the subject matter and the history while taking the holocaust from a different perspective. After all it's a holocaust movie about a group of people where "most" of them lived. And Spielberg takes flack on that from the other side that of all the topics to choose Spielberg picks the one where the Jews live and not showing worse.

I think how some psychopaths may view a film is irrelevant - if they get off on it so be it. They have the issue not the filmmakers.

Why Schindler's List works is largely because they stay away from making a film "about" the holocaust and make a film about a man who could have profited on group of slave laborers and chose instead to do the right thing. If only big business today would do such things - or for that matter anyone working at any of the current evil corporations.

The argument for subject matter is to some degree valid - but I think the validity that films and books should be made about the Schindler's of the world. And it's probably more topical in that according to polls at the time 1/3 of Americans don't believe the Holocaust happened - which is like not believing in Gravity or Evolution but that is a staggering number.

Ultimately, like I say - for me it's a gut reaction - I felt as most who saw it did - if you don't then you don't.

I reacted as Siskel and Ebert did - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1KhG_efrD4

Feanor
03-24-2010, 10:32 AM
Expectations on films usually have that effect on everyone so it's not you to guys. ....

But I remember that a Clockwork Orange was nominated for best picture and was ranked as one of the top 100 films of all time. I shut it off half way through it was so bad.

But I gave it another shot and now it's my number 2 film all time. Going from a no-star dreck to one of my favorites. I was expecting so much from a top 100 and a Kubrick film...
Funny you should mention A Clockwork Orange. I watch it again quite recently and enjoyed it but maybe not quite as much as its reputation suggests I should. Still, it's probably in my top 50 films.

Something to consider is that I first saw in in 1971 when it was a cutting edge film in ways that are strictly old-hat today.

RGA
03-27-2010, 10:31 PM
I just watched Slumdog Millionaire and I felt it was best picture worthy. I liked it better than Benjamin Button (which I have not seen all the way through, Frost Nixon which for me is just - so what, and the Reader (though I liked the Reader a whole lot) I would not say is a much better movie or even better - as good perhaps but Slumdog comes off more real. Have not seen Milk but I think I bought it last year sometime on DVD - have to look through the pile.

I don't see SlumDog as being a poor choice for a best picture winner. Well acted, a good way to tell the story, a love story, and a little of how the world really works when money is the goal behind everything. I thought it was quite terrific.

198 out of 212 critics polled praised it while 14 gave a thumbs down according to rottentomatoes. It's tough to really dump on it.

Usually I look at the other critic awards to see how a film did before I say the movie should not have won. Slumdog won the Boston and Kansas City film critics award the London film critics and British Academy and Australian awards for best picture as well as the Golden Globe. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/awards